Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Making a few corrections on your post, and extracting the important parts:

Misunderstood Humburg :http://www.science27.com/english/SolarSystem.html

A suggestion is not a scientific evidence.

Absolutely true, Bjarne! Now, go out to the bathroom, look into the mirror, and say that to yourself.

I have no problem,

Oh, you have. Trust me, you have.

It makes no difference whether it is rock, water or gas in the core.
We are talking about gravitational "friction" something you prefer not to try to understand.

Is that a new thing you have just invented? How does gravitational friction work?

The FORCE of gravity / mass attraction is real

Of course it is. Has anybody said otherwise?

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Think about this
9,8 Newton = 1 Kg.

Approximately, yes. And approximately two pounds. So what?

It is the FORCE that makes the contact so that you can fell it, - matter is used by the force, - but the nature of the force is still A SPACE PROPERTY

Since the force of gravity is completely tied to matter, it does not make sense to call it a property of space.

So it make no difference that the moon is hanging above you head - the mass attraction, and the FORCE is still REAL.

Have you given up making up imaginary things and changed to stating the obvious? Well, it is an improvement, but also .... a bit of a waste of time.

You cannot feel it because collision with space doesn’t harm you.

No, the reason we cannot feel it is that the effect of the moon's gravity is so small, compared ot Earth's gravity.

But this doesn’t make the FORCE unreal. It is still there.

Stating the obvious.

A force is a force doesn’t matter whether it is the force from the pull of a cow or the force from the Moons pull in the earth.

Stating the obvious.

A force is a force is a force.

The fact that gravity and hence mass attraction not is physical doesn’t make any difference.

It is physical. It is a physical force.

Force is always Force, you cannot just ignore that.

Stating the obvious.

So there is a invisible "wire" between a moon and a planet

made of space,
made of FORCE,
made of mass attraction . -

THIS is the connection.

We know all that. Did you have a point?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Absolutely true, Bjarne! Now, go out to the bathroom, look into the mirror, and say that to yourself.

You mean something "scientist" should have done before they mass brainwashed million on student and a whole world with the there nuts ideas;

• that RR suddenly is pist gone, or not exist at all, even though it is a mathematical fact it does exsist, and even though evidence are everywhere around us.
• that the Force between the Moon and Earth suddenly can be ignored , even though you have no idea what the force really is.
• that dark matter is really is matter, even though evidence of what it really is are all around you.
• that the universe come out of NOTHING even though the most stupid cow in all universe never would dream about to suggest such idiotic and completely braindead suggestion.
• that Higgs was anything else as fantasy, that have cost a world of naïve fools 50.000,000,000 USD just blown up in NOTHING
• that parallel Universes really exist, even though the world’s most insane person or cow not possible really and honestly could believe in a such schizophrenic universe.
• that rotation of planet and stars was caused like blab la blab la blab la blab la bla blab la blab la blab la blab la bla hallelujahs hallelujah Amen.
• that orbits of galaxies is anything else as misunderstood RR + SW
• and plenty more idiotic claims that is NOTHING but warm air.

I mean I have a opinion, - and I want to prove it.

I do not have the right to mass brainwash innocent people with something that NEVER is proven as certian science, - but this is how the pure fantasies mention above are incorporated in innocent students mind.

You should shame you self that you defend such rubbish techniques.

But I guess you are innocent because …. I mean ask you self; … is I Hans one of the victims of mass brainwash, - but I don’t know. ?

One day I promise you will understand how dangerous mass brainwash is, my mission is to prove it to you.

Now go to the mirror and honesty asks the picture in the mirror; Can you guarantee me that I in no way is a victim for mass brian wash?

Is Relativistic Resistance really not existing (even though it is a mathematical fact it does) ?

Can the influence of mass attraction not transfer kinetic energy between astronomic bodies (even though NASA now has mathematical proven it must be possible)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

Try to ask; why dear mirror do I refuse something even though there is evidence that I could be wrong ?
Dear mirror is there some connection to such ortodox stubbornness and mass brainwash ?

I want to buy a sweeper and a mirror to you, so that you can sweep in front of your own door before you sweep in front of my, and so that you can be honest to yourself.

Mass brainwash should be forbidden, so simple is that.

Honestly open minded debate should be possible, - but it is not, - (only in cow societies, and this is the way it always have been) rather it is general all right to look down, and flatten people that not agree with the mass brainwash systems .

What is yours address, so that I can send the sweeper and a mirror to you.

 

[MRC_Hans]

You mean something "scientist" should have done before they mass brainwashed million on student and a whole world with the there nuts ideas;

You have no idea what scientists do.

that RR suddenly is pist gone, or not exist at all, even though it is a mathematical fact it does exsist,

No, it does not exist, mathematically or otherwise.

that the Force between the Moon and Earth suddenly can be ignored , even though you have no idea what the force really is.

Who said it could be ignored?

that dark matter is really is matter, even though evidence of what it really is are all around you.

Nobody knows for sure what dark matter is.

that the universe come out of NOTHING even though the most stupid cow in all universe never would dream about to suggest such idiotic and completely braindead suggestion.

Nobody claims this.

that Higgs was anything else as fantasy, that have cost a world of naïve fools 50.000,000,000 USD just blown up in NOTHING

Oh, even if they never find the Higgs Boson, we will have learned a lot.

• that parallel Universes really exist, even though a the world’s most insane person not possible could believe in a such schizophrenic universe.
• that rotation of planet and stars was created like blab la blab la blab la blab la bla blab la blab la blab la blab la bla hallelujahs hallelujah Amen.
• that orbits of galaxies is anything else as misunderstood RR + SW
• and plenty more idiotic claims that is NOTHING but warm air.

Gibberish.

I mean I have a opinion, - and I want to prove it.

No, I don't believe that any more. You don't really want to prove anything. If you did, you would be trying harder. No, you are quite satisfied spouting idle fantasies. All you really want is an excuse to insult other people.

Is Relativistic Resistance really not existing (even though it is a mathematical fact it does) ?

Where is that mathematical proof?

Can the influence of mass attraction not transfer kinetic energy between astronomic bodies (even though NASA now has mathematical proven it must be possible)
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

You really don't WANT to understand, do you?

Mass brainwash should be forbidden, so simple is that.

Don't worry, you are not in much danger.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Where is that mathematical proof?

RR = (y – 1m/s) - where = 1m/s/√(1 - v²/c²)

Approximately, yes. And approximately two pounds. So what?

Imaging you would build a scaffold, 384 00 km high and put the moon on it, you would now be able to weight the Moon, because there is a FORCE between the moon and the Earth.
The weight would now be almost 4000 less compard to the weight the Moon would have on Earth

You have no idea what that force is or how space can establish such, but you know that something must pull the moon towards the Earth, with a force exactly as you Newton meter shows or as the weight shows.

Therefore the old saying; that the moon / earth pulls in each other is correct also even though space is curving bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla .

That pull can pull the Moon or a cow down to earth.

We can say the Earth want contact with the moon or the cow.

If you would prevent that contact to happen you can try to counteract by pulling the Moon opposite, - The weight of the moon DO ONLY EXSIST BECAUSE OF THE EARTH /MOON PULLS IN EACH OTHER

So the Pull in the Moon is REALLY in the end of the day, ALSO A PULL IN THE EARTH.

This can be compared to that you want contact to your wallet, when I also want your wallet you will try to prevent it, so when I pull your wallet I will also pull in your, right?

A big man could also rotate you, only by pulling your wallet, ... Do you know what I mean?
In the same way, if you pull the Moon you MUST also pull the Earth

Do you honestly really deny that?

 

[MRC_Hans]

RR = (y – 1m/s) - where = 1m/s/√(1 - v²/c²)

How is that proof of anything?

Imaging you would build a scaffold, 384 00 km high and put the moon on it, you would now be able to weight the Moon, because there is a FORCE between the moon and the Earth.

384 00 km? Well, whatever. And?

The weight would now be almost 4000 less compard to the weight the Moon would have on Earth

Do you mean due to the distance? Possibly, I can't be bothered to check your numbers. And?

You have no idea what that force is or how space can establish such, but you know that something must pull the moon towards the Earth, with a force exactly as you Newton meter shows or as the weight shows.

Yes I have. It is called gravity, or mass attraction, and we know exactly how it works. I can't telly you what it is 'made of' but so what?

We can say the Earth want contact with the moon or the cow.

No, that would be an extremely silly thing to say, if you are over 7 years.

If you would prevent that contact to happen you can try to counteract by pulling the Moon opposite, - The weight of the moon DO ONLY EXSIST BECAUSE OF THE EARTH /MOON PULLS IN EACH OTHER

So the Pull in the Moon is REALLY in the end of the day, ALSO A PULL IN THE EARTH.

Yes, gravity is a mutual force. Stating the obvious again.

This can be compared to that you want contact to your wallet, when I also want your wallet you will try to prevent it, so when I pull your wallet I will also pull in your, right?

A big man could also rotate you, only by pulling your wallet, ... Do you know what I mean?

Keep trying, I think you could hold the forum record for silly analogies.

In the same way, if you pull the Moon you MUST also pull the Earth

Do you honestly really deny that?

No. But not the way you think.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Take a very good look at the image

What happen here is that each orbit the bull transmits 100% of its kinetic energy (based on its speed) to the cowboy.

The cowboy will get very hot muscle when the day is gone; this is because he must counteract the orbit KE (force) he get from the bull, - to be able to receive the KE from the bull..

The received energy from the bull is converted to heat. For example under his feed, in his rope etc.

What would happen if the cowboy instead would bind the bull to his wallet, instead holding it his hand?
Yes I know it Hans, - you and me have not been at university so how can you know ? Maybe RC know this ?

Notice; the orbit-KE that is transmitted from the bull.
Did you understand that; “the orbit-KE is transmitted from the bull to the cowboy”. ?

I expect you have no idea of what I am talking about.

And what is then the big mathematical secret here?
According to mother cow the secret is that the energy (based on the speed of the bull - ½mv^2) is exactly that energy that is transmitted to the cowboy, for each orbit.

But again Hans, this is cow science on high level, - I don't expect the brain washed sociality around you ever will reach even the food of that mountain, - ..... before I force you to understand it, by proving this cow logic is certain knowledge.

And if it against my expectation should happen that you understand and agree with the mathematical principle so far,, - cows will still be left alone with the understanding that this mathematical principle is the exact same for each time the Moon, - phobos , Wasp18B etc.... have completed 1 orbit, round their rotating object.

The bull-illustration, - illustrate maximum RR and hence maximum lost of orbit KE, this is not always the case in cosmos, since size matter..

 

[Paul]

Take a very good look at the image

No thanks, it's just another of your stupidly misinformed cartoons.

What happen here is that each orbit the bull transmits 100% of its kinetic energy (based on its speed) to the cowboy.

Then the bull stops.

Of course that doesn't happen because the bull is not directly opposing the cowboy, much like the black hole example you failed to understand from the lecture.

The cowboy will get very hot muscle when the day is gone; this is because he must counteract the orbit KE (force) he get from the bull, - to be able to receive the KE from the bull..

Are you trying to say that work must be done to counteract force?

What would happen if the cowboy instead would bind the bull to his wallet, instead holding it his hand?

Depends how strong the bull is, how strong the wallet is, whether the wallet ia attached to the cowboy and whether the bull decides to charge the cowboy instead and gore him to death.

Did you understand that; “the orbit-KE is transmitted from the bull to the cowboy”. ?

The problem is that you do not understand.

I expect you have no idea of what I am talking about.

That's because you have no idea what you are talking about.

According to mother cow the secret is that the energy (based on the speed of the bull - ½mv^2) is exactly that energy that is transmitted to the cowboy, for each orbit.

That's because mother cow is an idiot.

by proving this cow logic is certain knowledge.

You've been invited to post any proofs you may have many times, it seems that you are unable to do so.

 

[MRC_Hans]

*Sigh*
Bjarne, I'm going to be kind and answer this because it demonstrates very clearly how you misunderstand it all, right from the start.

Take a very good look at the image

http://www.science27.com/forum/cowlogic.jpg

What happen here is that each orbit the bull transmits 100% of its kinetic energy (based on its speed) to the cowboy.

No. The bull does not transmit any KE to the cowboy. The force from the rope converts its KE to a new direction all the time, but the bull does not loose energy, because it keeps the same distance to the cowboy all the time. (It goes without saying, I hope, that we are here assuming a loss-free environment, for the sake of discussion)

The cowboy will get very hot muscle when the day is gone; this is because he must counteract the orbit KE (force) he get from the bull, - to be able to receive the KE from the bull..

The received energy from the bull is converted to heat. For example under his feed, in his rope etc.

The cowboy does in fact need to use energy, but only because humans are not built to effectively provide static force. Replace the cowboy with a pole, however, and the bull can run all day. The pole will not get tired, or hot.

What would happen if the cowboy instead would bind the bull to his wallet, instead holding it his hand?

Bjarne, some of your questions are simply too silly to answer.

Yes I know it Hans, - you and me have not been at university so how can you know ?

You don't need to go to the university to understand this. Any bright primary school kid can tell you. For an adult, one needs to be at moron level or be deliberately ignorant not to know.

Notice; the orbit-KE that is transmitted from the bull.
Did you understand that; “the orbit-KE is transmitted from the bull to the cowboy”. ?

No, it is not. You got it wrong from the very start.

I expect you have no idea of what I am talking about.

I perfectly understand what you are talking about, and you are wrong.

And what is then the big mathematical secret here?
According to mother cow the secret is that the energy (based on the speed of the bull - ½mv^2) is exactly that energy that is transmitted to the cowboy, for each orbit.

The big mathematical secret here is that you can't put two and two together.

But again Hans, this is cow science on high level, - I don't expect the brain washed sociality around you ever will reach even the food of that mountain, - ..... before I force you to understand it, by proving this cow logic is certain knowledge.

Oh, I'm sure it is actually very high science, for cows and people who insist on being as dumb as cows. In fact, it obviously goes entirely over your head.

Your attempts at insulting me are very pathetic and you only manage to make a fool of yourself.

Hans

 

[steenkh]

What happen here is that each orbit the bull transmits 100% of its kinetic energy (based on its speed) to the cowboy.

If the bull had transferred 100% of its kinetic energy to the cowboy, the bull have been stopped dead in its track, and I suspect the cowboy would have been flattened.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Oh, and since I predict Bjarne's reaction will be "blablalal", let me give a small simple experiment to perform:

You know pole tennis? This is the game where you have a pole that you stick in the ground, and a tennis ball on a string attached to it. Bjarne knows it, they are common in Denmark (stangtennis).

Take a pole tennis and give the ball a whack. Will it take more than one orbit around the pole? Answer, yes it will take several (depending on how hard you hit it). Even with friction and air resistance, it easily takes five to ten rounds.

This proves empirically that 100% of the KE is not transferred to the pole each orbit.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Oh, and since I predict Bjarne's reaction will be "blablalal", let me give a small simple experiment to perform:

Bjarne will never understand that: there are no outrageously stupid variables and no cows involved.

 

[Bjarne]

double

 

[Paul]

Right, what i meant was the maximum energy lost per orbit, , and also what I wrote above forget it it is irrelevant

If you can't even express what you want to and you then claim it is irrelevant, what are we supposed tot think about the amount of thought you put into your ideas?

Time to take a short time out.

Why don't you use it to read some science.

I knew it, I would lose you even before you was hooked.

You never had us because you keep posting nonsense. Nonsense you can't even keep straight in your own head before you inflict it upon others.

OK let's try a simpler model.

At least there are no cows this time.

If this you just wrote should be true the bearing should be absolutely resistance free.

Did you read the post you are replying to?

"It goes without saying, I hope, that we are here assuming a loss-free environment, for the sake of discussion"
​

But the point is that a saboteur have put sand in the bearing (you know this is what idiotic insane crackpot sometimes does), and what happen now?

Ok, so you want to introduce all kinds of new data without any idea of how to resolve the mathematics.

Well, - the bull pulls the bearing until it is almost melted.
Where on earth do you believe that E came from if not from the bulls orbit-KE

Oops, spoke too soon about the lack of cows.

What happens to the bull if it loses its kinetic energy?

 

[Bjarne]

What happens to the bull if it loses its kinetic energy?

It will eat more grass.

. If the bull had transferred 100% of its kinetic energy to the cowboy, the bull have been stopped dead in its track, and I suspect the cowboy would have been flattened

Right, what i meant was the maximum energy lost per orbit, , and also what I wrote above forget it it is irrelevant

*Sigh*
Bjarne, I'm going to be kind and answer this because it demonstrates very clearly how you misunderstand it all, right from the start.

No. The bull does not transmit any KE to the cowboy. The force from the rope converts its KE to a new direction all the time, but the bull does not loose energy, because it keeps the same distance to the cowboy all the time. (It goes without saying, I hope, that we are here assuming a loss-free environment, for the sake of discussion)

Time to take a short time out.
I knew it, I would lose you even before you was hooked.

OK let's try a simpler model.

If this you just wrote should be true the bearing should be absolutely resistance free, but this is not the case (+ the bearing would rotate).

You see the bearing is rotating; this mean KE is transmitted from the bull.
Also the cowboy (before) was rotation, - that too is KE transmitted from the cow.
By a little help from Storm P the bull can also get a house to rotate or a destroyer

So the conclusion is that part of the bulls KE always is transferred to the center, even though only is a little, and even if the pull only would pull a iron beam.

When rotation resistance is strong a lot of KE is transmitted.
The point is that a saboteur have put sand in the bearing (you know this is what idiotic insane crackpot sometimes does), and what happen now?
Well, - the bull pulls the bearing until it is almost melted.
Where on earth do you believe that thermal energy or KE came to the bearing , - if not from the bulls orbit-KE

 

[Paul]

It will eat more grass.

That truly is the post of an idiot.


As for the rest, moving everything from post 4713 and then deleting it is hardly an answer.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Right, what i meant was the maximum energy lost per orbit, , and also what I wrote above forget it it is irrelevant

Bjarne, everything you write is irrelevant.

I knew it, I would lose you even before you was hooked.

Of course you keep loosing me. That is because you make no sense at all.

OK let's try a simpler model.

http://www.science27.com/images/ab.jpg

If this you just wrote should be true the bearing should be absolutely resistance free, but this is not the case (+ the bearing would rotate).

You see the bearing is rotating; this mean KE is transmitted from the bull.

Also the cowboy (before) was rotation, - that too is KE transmitted from the cow.
By a little help from Storm P the bull can also get a house to rotate or a destroyer

Yes, because it is in mechanical contact with whatever you put in the centre. You have drawn a rope, a rod, and whatever.

So the conclusion is that part of the bulls KE always is transferred to the center, even though only is a little, and even if the pull only would pull a iron beam.

No that is not the conclusion. KE is ONLY transferred when there is a mechanical connection. If the bull just decides to run in circles around the cowboy, there is no KE transferred.

This is so simple that a 5 year old can understand it.

However, gravity is NOT a string or other kind of mechanical connection. It is a force that acts directly between the gravitation centres of two objects, and it does not directly influence rotation.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne, everything .

Yes, because it is in mechanical contact with whatever you put in the centre. You have drawn a rope, a rod, and whatever.

A FORCE is a FORCE, in the end of the day there are no “mechanical contact” if you would ask Max Planck, since : “there are no matter as such” – the most of the macro and micro universes is distances and energy.

The fact that you are sure how “mechanical contact” works, cannot justify that then you also know everthing about how “mass attraction contact” works or not work.

It is the same that you would claim that oxygen is blue because the sky is blue the Arctic Ocean is also blue, and therefor is blue cold.
All you have in your "model" is fantasy, not science.

The Common denominator is FORCE.

So long you have NO EVIDENCE that the Mass Attraction Force can or cannot pull a planets rotation (or a star) please STOP supporting world wide brainwash.

YOU are NOT speaking about certain knowledge, but rather something similar to the dark Middle Age where religious fools also believe that the law in heaven was much different from the law in on Earth.


You and the authoritarian systematical brainwash system have no idea of what Mass Attraction is, so WHY , - do you at all bla bla bla bla bla bla bla what it does or not does. ?

Hans you are NOT speaking certain SCIENCE, - BUT 100% religion, all you that is missing is ONLY a Good and Hallelujah.

Please respect the scientific method, before you support mass brainwash.

No that is not the conclusion. KE is ONLY transferred when there is a mechanical connection. If the bull just decides to run in circles around the cowboy, there is no KE transferred.

It is irrelevant. First at all a bull never take such decision. Secondly between astronomic bodies there is a FORCE exactly as there is a force in that rope between the bull and the cowboy.

Try to show me just ONE old star that still has several (3 or 4) planets (left)...
Evidence is all around you. -
All stars & planets will also one by one lose their moons/planets, only a question of time as well as their own rotation will stop.
The Sun's rotation will stop.
A old and very slow rotating star have lost (almost) all its planets.(except giants)
All the evidence you need is just above you head. So why invent nonsense. (?)

http://www.science27.com/english/SolarSystem.html

 

[MRC_Hans]

A FORCE is a FORCE, in the end of the day there are no “mechanical contact” if you would ask Max Planck, since : “there are no matter as such” – the most of the macro and micro universes is distances and energy.

I can always see when you are on your heels. Then your tone gets shrill, and the nonsense level rises.

Bjarne, if you don't know the difference between mechanical contact and not mechanical contact, I'm afraid I can't help you, but you have my sympathies.

The fact that you are sure how “mechanical contact” works, cannot justify that then you also know everthing about how “mass attraction contact” works or not work.

No it doesn't, they are two different things. However, the fact is that we do know how gravity works.

So long you have NO EVIDENCE that the Mass Attraction Force can or cannot pull a planets rotation (or a star) please STOP supporting world wide brainwash, exactly like a big enough bull can.

We do know that this is not the case. There is objective evidence for it.

Please respect the scientific methods, before you support mass brainwash.

Bjarne, this is utterly ridiculous. You have nothing but fantasy ideas and ignorance. You are in no position to make demands.

Try to show me just ONE old star that still has several planets (left)...

Is 5 billion years old enough?

Evidence is all around you.

Point to some.

Tell me: Are you just having fun or do you really believe all the nonsense you are posting?

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No it doesn't, they are two different things. However, the fact is that we do know how gravity works.

Partly; yes
Fully; no.
Analogy; we know what oxygen does, but this do not mean that it also can do something you still not have understood.
You have no idea not mass attraction is or how it works. - What make 1 kilo to 1 kilo or 100 kg to 100 kg. ? Newton / Force Yes, - insane cows know this too, but try to dig deeper instead of your omniscient religion.
Hans you know NOTHING about what mass attraction is, so STOP your nonsense.
STOP supporting naive fools making science to a religion for naive fools.

We do know that this is not the case. There is objective evidence for it.

Where are the EVIDENCE for that mass attraction contact not is transmitting energy between objects?
Here is mathematical evidence for that you is lying http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13411-earths-rotation-may-account-for-wayward-spacecraft.html

Bjarne, this is utterly ridiculous. You have nothing but fantasy ideas and ignorance. You are in no position to make demands.

Coherence my friend, - coherence.
Just a question to open your closed eyes and you too will see the same on the sky as cows on Jensen's Ploughed fields have seen on the sky for billions of years.

Is 5 billion years old enough?

a "bit" older
http://www.science27.com/english/SolarSystem.html

http://www.science27.com/english/Stars3.htm